<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/static/style.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/rss/recent/all/10</id>
  <title>Most recent entries from all</title>
  <updated>2026-09-29T10:29:45.719673+00:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Vulnerability-Lookup</name>
    <email>info@circl.lu</email>
  </author>
  <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu" rel="alternate"/>
  <generator uri="https://lkiesow.github.io/python-feedgen" version="1.0.0">python-feedgen</generator>
  <subtitle>Contains only the most 10 recent entries.</subtitle>
  <entry>
    <id>https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-53331</id>
    <title>CVE-2026-53331 — slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl-&gt;lock</title>
    <updated>2026-09-29T10:29:45.737015+00:00</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><strong>Affected:</strong> Linux</p>
<p>In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:</p>
<p>slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl-&gt;lock</p>
<p>During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the
intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.</p>
<p>But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in
slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple
other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e.
slim_controller then tx_lock).</p>
<p>The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:</p>
<p>rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock:
  ffff00009793e620 (&amp;ctrl-&gt;lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus</p>
<p>but task is already holding lock:
  ffff00009793fb50 (&amp;ctrl-&gt;tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl</p>
<p>which lock already depends on the new lock.</p>
<p>Possible unsafe locking scenario:</p>
<p>CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(&amp;ctrl-&gt;tx_lock);
                                lock(&amp;ctrl-&gt;lock);
                                lock(&amp;ctrl-&gt;tx_lock);
   lock(&amp;ctrl-&gt;lock);</p>
<p>The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call
qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction.
But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single
qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().</p>
<p>Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn…</p></div>
    </content>
    <link href="https://vulnerability.circl.lu/vuln/cve-2026-53331"/>
  </entry>
</feed>
